What do you think?
Rate this book
Pelléas et Mélisande
"Une variation supérieure sur l'admirable vieux mélodrame", notait Mallarmé à propos de Pelléas, dont l'intrigue, effectivement, peut sembler bien conventionnelle : le Prince Golaud recueille à l'orée d'un bois une jeune fille dont il va faire son épouse. Mais c'est du frère de Golaud, Pelléas, que Mélisande tombe amoureuse, et le destin fatal qui pèse sur les personnages les mènera inévitablement à la désolation. La fable cependant n'est ici que prétexte à dérober au silence ses secrets. Universellement célèbres au début de ce siècle, à cause notamment de l'opéra de Debussy, les ombres de Pelléas et Mélisande nous reviennent, dans leur innocence inquiète.
114 pages
First published January 1, 1892
12 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Maurice Maeterlinck
1,254 books296 followersMaurice Polydore Marie Bernard Maeterlinck (also called Count Maeterlinck from 1932) was a Belgian playwright, poet, and essayist who was a Fleming, but wrote in French.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1911 "in appreciation of his many-sided literary activities, and especially of his dramatic works, which are distinguished by a wealth of imagination and by a poetic fancy, which reveals, sometimes in the guise of a fairy tale, a deep inspiration, while in a mysterious way they appeal to the readers' own feelings and stimulate their imaginations".
The main themes in his work are death and the meaning of life. His plays form an important part of the Symbolist movement.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1911 "in appreciation of his many-sided literary activities, and especially of his dramatic works, which are distinguished by a wealth of imagination and by a poetic fancy, which reveals, sometimes in the guise of a fairy tale, a deep inspiration, while in a mysterious way they appeal to the readers' own feelings and stimulate their imaginations".
The main themes in his work are death and the meaning of life. His plays form an important part of the Symbolist movement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
November 20, 2017
What am I?
Reading Maeterlinck's play feels like engaging in a beautiful, magical, and mysterious riddle.
What am I? A classic play?
Yes, maybe. I do have five acts, a plot, characters and a deadly end, so I guess I could be tragedy. My content suggests it: old man marries young woman, who falls in love with his younger brother. Discovery leads to death. But somehow I lack the action of a classic drama. There is no determination, time is floating, settings change, my characters do not fully understand what they are doing, and why. I do not I think I have the passion of a Greek drama, and I do not feature the complicated, intricate humour of Shakespearean dialogue. Nor do I busy myself with the ideas of Enlightenment theatre. So maybe I am not a drama, after all.
What am I? A fairy tale?
Yes, maybe. I do start in a dark forest, with a young princess in distress who is rescued to an imposing castle on the border between the dark, dark woods and the wide, wide ocean. She loses rings and crowns and falls in love with a young man. I could be a fairy tale. But I lack the moral message in the end, and there is no fight between good and evil, just between indecision and lethargy. So maybe I am not a fairy tale, after all.
What am I? A dream?
Yes, maybe. Almost all that happens remains vague, dreamlike, open-ended, incomprehensible to all characters. I could be a dream. After all, I was born in 1893, at the beginning of the era Freud. I might very well be a subconscious mind, dreaming about symbolic myths. I contain all ingredients. But all my settings are so clear. They are described with loving detail, showing exactly what the castle, the garden, the woods look like, and how my characters are arranged around the scene. If I were a dream, not only thoughts and actions would remain undefined, the surroundings would be cloudy as well. So maybe I am not a dream, after all.
I KNOW WHAT I AM!
I am a tableau vivant! Changing every scene, creating a symbolic picture of a feeling, a constellation, a floating impression. I take care to arrange light and shadows to be aesthetically appealing and evocative of the drama that does not unfold entirely. I create one beautiful picture after the other, and fill each scene with paintings of situations that are accompanied by voices.
And what a beautiful tableau vivant I am. One of the best. L'art pour l'art is celebrated in my eclectic beauty. I am maybe not the reason Maeterlinck won the Nobel Prize, but I deserve to be read and admired for the evocation of the era's strange dichotomy between scientific and social development and its fatalistic, dreamlike resignation and passivity.
I am a child of my time!
Reading Maeterlinck's play feels like engaging in a beautiful, magical, and mysterious riddle.
What am I? A classic play?
Yes, maybe. I do have five acts, a plot, characters and a deadly end, so I guess I could be tragedy. My content suggests it: old man marries young woman, who falls in love with his younger brother. Discovery leads to death. But somehow I lack the action of a classic drama. There is no determination, time is floating, settings change, my characters do not fully understand what they are doing, and why. I do not I think I have the passion of a Greek drama, and I do not feature the complicated, intricate humour of Shakespearean dialogue. Nor do I busy myself with the ideas of Enlightenment theatre. So maybe I am not a drama, after all.
What am I? A fairy tale?
Yes, maybe. I do start in a dark forest, with a young princess in distress who is rescued to an imposing castle on the border between the dark, dark woods and the wide, wide ocean. She loses rings and crowns and falls in love with a young man. I could be a fairy tale. But I lack the moral message in the end, and there is no fight between good and evil, just between indecision and lethargy. So maybe I am not a fairy tale, after all.
What am I? A dream?
Yes, maybe. Almost all that happens remains vague, dreamlike, open-ended, incomprehensible to all characters. I could be a dream. After all, I was born in 1893, at the beginning of the era Freud. I might very well be a subconscious mind, dreaming about symbolic myths. I contain all ingredients. But all my settings are so clear. They are described with loving detail, showing exactly what the castle, the garden, the woods look like, and how my characters are arranged around the scene. If I were a dream, not only thoughts and actions would remain undefined, the surroundings would be cloudy as well. So maybe I am not a dream, after all.
I KNOW WHAT I AM!
I am a tableau vivant! Changing every scene, creating a symbolic picture of a feeling, a constellation, a floating impression. I take care to arrange light and shadows to be aesthetically appealing and evocative of the drama that does not unfold entirely. I create one beautiful picture after the other, and fill each scene with paintings of situations that are accompanied by voices.
And what a beautiful tableau vivant I am. One of the best. L'art pour l'art is celebrated in my eclectic beauty. I am maybe not the reason Maeterlinck won the Nobel Prize, but I deserve to be read and admired for the evocation of the era's strange dichotomy between scientific and social development and its fatalistic, dreamlike resignation and passivity.
I am a child of my time!
September 24, 2016
Maeterlinck was an important part of the Symbolist movement in literature and it is important to realize that when reading this play. Here is a brief synopsis of Symbolism from Wikipedia:
"Symbolists believed that art should represent absolute truths that could only be described indirectly. Thus, they wrote in a very metaphorical and suggestive manner, endowing particular images or objects with symbolic meaning."
Thus, do not expect that the characters and action of the play will behave in a realistic or natural manner -- everything is symbolic.
Perhaps when I have time to think over what all these symbols are trying to say, my rating of the play will change. Based on my first gut reaction, this is a tragedy a la Romeo and Juliet about a doomed love between the King's grandson Pelléas and his brother's wife Mélisande. That is the surface story; what it represents I have some suspicions but am not sure.
later, updated rating to 4*
Thoughts:
Mélisande seems to be an undine, a female mythological water sprite, as she is discovered near a pool of water and water references abound. Pelléas and his brother Golaud are definitely land creatures, perhaps they are what they appear to be. So one interpretation is that they represent the relationship between nature and society/civilization.
The famine of the people of Allemonde that manifests after Golaud and Mélisande marry could be a symbol foreshadowing the tragedy to come. Or maybe it's a sign of the fact that this marriage is wrong. There is no indication that Mélisande ever cared for Golaud; in fact, at first she shrinks from him. Another symbol indicating problems with the marriage is Mélisande losing her wedding ring into another pool of water, as if the water spirits were trying to reclaim her.
"Symbolists believed that art should represent absolute truths that could only be described indirectly. Thus, they wrote in a very metaphorical and suggestive manner, endowing particular images or objects with symbolic meaning."
Thus, do not expect that the characters and action of the play will behave in a realistic or natural manner -- everything is symbolic.
Perhaps when I have time to think over what all these symbols are trying to say, my rating of the play will change. Based on my first gut reaction, this is a tragedy a la Romeo and Juliet about a doomed love between the King's grandson Pelléas and his brother's wife Mélisande. That is the surface story; what it represents I have some suspicions but am not sure.
later, updated rating to 4*
Thoughts:
Mélisande seems to be an undine, a female mythological water sprite, as she is discovered near a pool of water and water references abound. Pelléas and his brother Golaud are definitely land creatures, perhaps they are what they appear to be. So one interpretation is that they represent the relationship between nature and society/civilization.
The famine of the people of Allemonde that manifests after Golaud and Mélisande marry could be a symbol foreshadowing the tragedy to come. Or maybe it's a sign of the fact that this marriage is wrong. There is no indication that Mélisande ever cared for Golaud; in fact, at first she shrinks from him. Another symbol indicating problems with the marriage is Mélisande losing her wedding ring into another pool of water, as if the water spirits were trying to reclaim her.
September 1, 2023
"Without the spice of horror, there is neither love nor light."--Ernest Hello, circa 1861
Though Maurice Maeterlinck was not a horror writer, he seems to have had a profound understanding of the genre, and he has been cited as taking the above quote of French philosopher Ernest Hello to heart. And perhaps nowhere is this view more apparent than in Maeterlinck's tragic play, "Pelléas et Mélisande."
Though he was awarded one of the early Nobel Prizes for his entire body of literature, the Belgian playwright has largely been forgotten in America. This drama alone is perhaps the only example of Maeterlinck's work that may be familiar, since it was popularized by Debussy as an opera. But even among those who have read and studied the work, some critics have dismissed it as being a Symbolist reworking of Shakespeare's classic "Othello."
Well, clearly you'll see that the plot is in fact based on "Othello." A middle-aged prince, Golaud, finds the mysterious maiden Mélisande near a well deep in a secluded wood. She claims she has escaped a great wrong done to her, but won't say what happened or where she came from. Golaud takes her in to his gloomy castle where light can barely penetrate, and soon marries her. However, Mélisande develops a close friendship with Golaud's brother, Pelléas. Though there is no evidence that the two are having a sexual relationship, they are clearly having an emotional affair. There's is a spiritual attraction, as represented via the symbol of light. The palace is constantly shaded by thick impenetrable forest and has little light inside, but the couple are spied by Golaud together in Mélisande's bedroom enraptured by a lamp. It is this seemingly innocent interaction that drives Golaud over the edge, insane with jealousy, not because his wife is unfaithful, but shares a connection with his brother that he cannot even hope to understand.
The result is a heart-rending account of severe domestic abuse that serves not to copy "Othello," but to critique it.
Consider this a trigger warning for the potential reader that has experienced partner violence first-hand, as it can be quite brutal in the last two acts, made all the more horrific because Golaud initially comes across as a rather laid-back, kind, and gentle giant. There is a monster inside all of us that we can hide from family, our associates, and even ourselves until it becomes unleashed through drugs, alcohol, or simply because we are unmindful of our own foibles.
But without horror, without threat of our own destruction, how can we have any understanding or appreciation of our lives? We need darkness to be able to see light.
The writing style may put some people off. It is tempting to say that the English translation is not adequate, failing to flow poetically or even narratively like most dramas that have had more staying power. But even the original French, though it rolls off the tongue much more beautifully than the English editions, is written with very stilted dialogue. This makes it easy to read, but fails as a "closet drama." What I mean by a closet drama is a perfomance piece or script that is not chained to the stage, that can be appreciated in the mind's eye of the solitary reader. The sparseness of the scenes, lacking flow and descriptive power, and sometimes even defying the laws of physics or believability, does not evoke adequate visualization and immersion that should characterize a great "closet drama."
But this is rather typical of Symbolist writing, as the idea was to capture the essence of abstract ideas and universal truths that cannot be adequately described through language. Thus, Symbolist poems, plays, short stories, and novels tend to compress a lot of material into just a few words or sentences, the exact opposite of sprawling modernist writings like "In Search of Lost Time" and "Ulysses." Perhaps lack of early systemized education regarding classical mythology, symbols, allegory, and archetypes, combined with an overall reduction of individual imagination in the digital era of visual media, is partly responsible for the inability of Symbolism to maintain any substantial hold on the public consciousness as an art form. And if that is so, this play seems to suffer greatly for it, because I can easily foresee a lot of modern readers finding it to be a largely forgettable domestic drama where every character is an underdeveloped stereotype doing things that make not a lick of sense, and thus finding the whole thing over-the-top and over-rated.
For example, Mélisande superficially comes across as an airheaded, histrionic whipping post, doing and saying idiotic things when she is allowed to do or say anything at all, and failing to exhibit an ounce of courage, strength, or common sense. She can be seen as a stereotypical pre-modernist damsel in distress, fretting and swooning and crying while simultaneously putting herself in compromising positions like hanging out of castle towers and playing a ridiculous game of toss with her wedding ring over a bottomless pool. This will no doubt anger and frustrate modern readers. I've listened to a few performances of the play, and it seems the typical portrayal of Mélisande doesn't do the character any favors, who is often played with breathless, quivering fragility without any indication that this is an actual person. "Oh, I am so dreadfully unhappy! Oh, my Lord, do take me away from this place! Oh, I shall faint! Oh, I shall fall down! Oh, I may stub my royal toe! Oh, I may break a nail! Ooohhhwww!"
And that's a real shame, as I do not think that was the character Maeterlinck intended. It is strongly implied that Mélisande had escaped some awful betrayal before she was discovered by Golaud and was in traumatic shock, even throwing away her crown into the well. But this also implies that she is someone who knows how to take care of herself, willing to dispose of riches and status if she is to not to be treated as a human being. We do not know exactly how much time passed between when she was found by Golaud and the rest of the play, what she went through to eventually trust him, and why she eventually married him in the first place, because what matters is that she unwittingly jumped from the frying pan into the fire, doomed to repeat the cycle of abuse in a world where women are property. She is still young, naturally a child despite being forced to grow up fast, and so she does make some dopey mistakes, and it is her inherent innocence that draws her to the equally childlike Pelléas. Her ability to thrive, mature, and blossom in the light is stunted as her flower is brutally cut by blind jealousy and ignorance. Therefore, she is not a dainty spoiled princess from a 1940s Hollywood period melodrama, and should not be played as one. Nor does her character allow for a woke reimagining for "modern audiences"--a kick-ass girl-boss who doesn't need no man and who wins the day by smashing the testacles of the patriarchy. Her situation is very much rooted in unflattering, brutally honest reality, not fantasy, and is truly horrific and tragic. But whether you are an audio voice performer, an actor on stage or film, or a listener reading from the comfort of your living room, understanding Mélisande requires a modicum of empathy and imagination, because, as I said, the text is minimal, and Maeterlinck does NOT hold your hand.
So I would like to see more awareness of this overall poignant and important work, but I can understand why it may have fallen from the high status it used to enjoy in literary and artistic circles in the early 20th Century. Still, I think that you will get the most out of it if you cast aside modern expectations and approach it thoughtfully from a more universal, timeless, humanisitic perspective. It is quite short and easy to read, so give it a try and see what you think.
SCORE: 4/5
Though Maurice Maeterlinck was not a horror writer, he seems to have had a profound understanding of the genre, and he has been cited as taking the above quote of French philosopher Ernest Hello to heart. And perhaps nowhere is this view more apparent than in Maeterlinck's tragic play, "Pelléas et Mélisande."
Though he was awarded one of the early Nobel Prizes for his entire body of literature, the Belgian playwright has largely been forgotten in America. This drama alone is perhaps the only example of Maeterlinck's work that may be familiar, since it was popularized by Debussy as an opera. But even among those who have read and studied the work, some critics have dismissed it as being a Symbolist reworking of Shakespeare's classic "Othello."
Well, clearly you'll see that the plot is in fact based on "Othello." A middle-aged prince, Golaud, finds the mysterious maiden Mélisande near a well deep in a secluded wood. She claims she has escaped a great wrong done to her, but won't say what happened or where she came from. Golaud takes her in to his gloomy castle where light can barely penetrate, and soon marries her. However, Mélisande develops a close friendship with Golaud's brother, Pelléas. Though there is no evidence that the two are having a sexual relationship, they are clearly having an emotional affair. There's is a spiritual attraction, as represented via the symbol of light. The palace is constantly shaded by thick impenetrable forest and has little light inside, but the couple are spied by Golaud together in Mélisande's bedroom enraptured by a lamp. It is this seemingly innocent interaction that drives Golaud over the edge, insane with jealousy, not because his wife is unfaithful, but shares a connection with his brother that he cannot even hope to understand.
The result is a heart-rending account of severe domestic abuse that serves not to copy "Othello," but to critique it.
Consider this a trigger warning for the potential reader that has experienced partner violence first-hand, as it can be quite brutal in the last two acts, made all the more horrific because Golaud initially comes across as a rather laid-back, kind, and gentle giant. There is a monster inside all of us that we can hide from family, our associates, and even ourselves until it becomes unleashed through drugs, alcohol, or simply because we are unmindful of our own foibles.
But without horror, without threat of our own destruction, how can we have any understanding or appreciation of our lives? We need darkness to be able to see light.
The writing style may put some people off. It is tempting to say that the English translation is not adequate, failing to flow poetically or even narratively like most dramas that have had more staying power. But even the original French, though it rolls off the tongue much more beautifully than the English editions, is written with very stilted dialogue. This makes it easy to read, but fails as a "closet drama." What I mean by a closet drama is a perfomance piece or script that is not chained to the stage, that can be appreciated in the mind's eye of the solitary reader. The sparseness of the scenes, lacking flow and descriptive power, and sometimes even defying the laws of physics or believability, does not evoke adequate visualization and immersion that should characterize a great "closet drama."
But this is rather typical of Symbolist writing, as the idea was to capture the essence of abstract ideas and universal truths that cannot be adequately described through language. Thus, Symbolist poems, plays, short stories, and novels tend to compress a lot of material into just a few words or sentences, the exact opposite of sprawling modernist writings like "In Search of Lost Time" and "Ulysses." Perhaps lack of early systemized education regarding classical mythology, symbols, allegory, and archetypes, combined with an overall reduction of individual imagination in the digital era of visual media, is partly responsible for the inability of Symbolism to maintain any substantial hold on the public consciousness as an art form. And if that is so, this play seems to suffer greatly for it, because I can easily foresee a lot of modern readers finding it to be a largely forgettable domestic drama where every character is an underdeveloped stereotype doing things that make not a lick of sense, and thus finding the whole thing over-the-top and over-rated.
For example, Mélisande superficially comes across as an airheaded, histrionic whipping post, doing and saying idiotic things when she is allowed to do or say anything at all, and failing to exhibit an ounce of courage, strength, or common sense. She can be seen as a stereotypical pre-modernist damsel in distress, fretting and swooning and crying while simultaneously putting herself in compromising positions like hanging out of castle towers and playing a ridiculous game of toss with her wedding ring over a bottomless pool. This will no doubt anger and frustrate modern readers. I've listened to a few performances of the play, and it seems the typical portrayal of Mélisande doesn't do the character any favors, who is often played with breathless, quivering fragility without any indication that this is an actual person. "Oh, I am so dreadfully unhappy! Oh, my Lord, do take me away from this place! Oh, I shall faint! Oh, I shall fall down! Oh, I may stub my royal toe! Oh, I may break a nail! Ooohhhwww!"
And that's a real shame, as I do not think that was the character Maeterlinck intended. It is strongly implied that Mélisande had escaped some awful betrayal before she was discovered by Golaud and was in traumatic shock, even throwing away her crown into the well. But this also implies that she is someone who knows how to take care of herself, willing to dispose of riches and status if she is to not to be treated as a human being. We do not know exactly how much time passed between when she was found by Golaud and the rest of the play, what she went through to eventually trust him, and why she eventually married him in the first place, because what matters is that she unwittingly jumped from the frying pan into the fire, doomed to repeat the cycle of abuse in a world where women are property. She is still young, naturally a child despite being forced to grow up fast, and so she does make some dopey mistakes, and it is her inherent innocence that draws her to the equally childlike Pelléas. Her ability to thrive, mature, and blossom in the light is stunted as her flower is brutally cut by blind jealousy and ignorance. Therefore, she is not a dainty spoiled princess from a 1940s Hollywood period melodrama, and should not be played as one. Nor does her character allow for a woke reimagining for "modern audiences"--a kick-ass girl-boss who doesn't need no man and who wins the day by smashing the testacles of the patriarchy. Her situation is very much rooted in unflattering, brutally honest reality, not fantasy, and is truly horrific and tragic. But whether you are an audio voice performer, an actor on stage or film, or a listener reading from the comfort of your living room, understanding Mélisande requires a modicum of empathy and imagination, because, as I said, the text is minimal, and Maeterlinck does NOT hold your hand.
So I would like to see more awareness of this overall poignant and important work, but I can understand why it may have fallen from the high status it used to enjoy in literary and artistic circles in the early 20th Century. Still, I think that you will get the most out of it if you cast aside modern expectations and approach it thoughtfully from a more universal, timeless, humanisitic perspective. It is quite short and easy to read, so give it a try and see what you think.
SCORE: 4/5
September 18, 2017
This play, one of his best, brought Maeterlinck to international fame. There is much different about Maeterlinck’s poetry and drama. Heavy in symbolism, rich in dialogue, there is always a tension in his work. Maeterlinck’s dialogue makes great use of repetition. This can be both criticized and studied – criticized for its simplicity and studied for the impact it has on the play. The repetition adds a tense, nervous feel. “When once misfortune enters a house, silence is in vain.” That single line will tell you about this play.
Arkel, the voice of wisdom, declares, “Unless we close our eyes we are always deceived.” He does so at the beginning of the play and the line is repeated later. Maeterlinck could not be clearer. As Montrose Moses states in the introduction, “All that Maeterlinck requires in his dramas is for us to recognize that there is an intimate beauty, an interior value, an essence, more real and more true than the object which symbolizes it.” Part of this belief is a theory I don’t fully comprehend. Maeterlinck said, “I believe that poems die the moment they are outwardly expressed.” It is the truth that is left behind, the words and masterpieces of theatre and literature or symbolic representations of that truth.
This work is a masterpiece. It deserves study. It is difficult. I liked it very much.
See my other reviews here!
Arkel, the voice of wisdom, declares, “Unless we close our eyes we are always deceived.” He does so at the beginning of the play and the line is repeated later. Maeterlinck could not be clearer. As Montrose Moses states in the introduction, “All that Maeterlinck requires in his dramas is for us to recognize that there is an intimate beauty, an interior value, an essence, more real and more true than the object which symbolizes it.” Part of this belief is a theory I don’t fully comprehend. Maeterlinck said, “I believe that poems die the moment they are outwardly expressed.” It is the truth that is left behind, the words and masterpieces of theatre and literature or symbolic representations of that truth.
This work is a masterpiece. It deserves study. It is difficult. I liked it very much.
See my other reviews here!
February 19, 2025
Golaud faut aller se faire foutre
November 19, 2023
It's been a while since I read a play.
I read it in high school (in French, OV), didn't find it great at the time but now it totally feels like something I'd like.
Today this story pleased me more than I remembered. The symbolism is, imho, something that grows on you and I sure wasn't mature enough when reading it for school.
In "Pelléas et Mélisande", the main themes are love and death, with a high tone given to blindness, darkness and cold.
All these create an uncomfortable stage and we can imagine a muffled stage with minimalist lighting.
Water is important as it has a deep meaning of loss, likely bound to death.
The dialogues are sometimes disconnected, as if the characters got lost with their own feeling and what they want to say to other.
The lasting feeling I have is one of unease and my mind is still wandering and wondering what this all is supposed to mean, which is surely what Maeterlinck wants so well done to him👍
I read it in high school (in French, OV), didn't find it great at the time but now it totally feels like something I'd like.
Today this story pleased me more than I remembered. The symbolism is, imho, something that grows on you and I sure wasn't mature enough when reading it for school.
In "Pelléas et Mélisande", the main themes are love and death, with a high tone given to blindness, darkness and cold.
All these create an uncomfortable stage and we can imagine a muffled stage with minimalist lighting.
Water is important as it has a deep meaning of loss, likely bound to death.
The dialogues are sometimes disconnected, as if the characters got lost with their own feeling and what they want to say to other.
The lasting feeling I have is one of unease and my mind is still wandering and wondering what this all is supposed to mean, which is surely what Maeterlinck wants so well done to him👍
November 18, 2025
Il y a tout pour que j'adore : du silence, du trébuchement, l'impossibilité de réussir à communiquer
February 7, 2025
With its dark setting, tragic plot and dreamlike mood, “Pelleas and Melisande” marks a key turn away from realism in European theatre. In 1893 Maurice Maeterlinck was reinventing the dramatic genre by blurring the line between reality and our concept of it. The theatre of the 20th century owes much to the experimental techniques of this Belgian dramatist. Yet, the encounter with the written text may leave out most of the historic impact, and rather it focuses the human mind on the drama of the love triangle at the heart of the play.
Young Melisande marries an old widower, but falls in love with his younger brother. The events in her life happen independently of her realisation of them. There is no strong character construction or plot development here. Maeterlinck forced the action with the unexpected expediency of a dream. Shortly, the audience abandons the pretence of rationality and lets itself be weaved in a tapestry of imaginative unreal reality. The characters in turn are slaves to the logic of chaos and react with passions that outweigh the necessity of the action.
The effect is unsettling, and in part disappointing, for Maeterlinck forced us to ultimately employ thinking over feeling in the enjoyment of the play. The cerebral nature of his work is responsible for both its excellence and its relative obscurity in popular consciousness. “Pelleas and Melisande” with its radical approach might have changed history, and yet it comes across as just a curious experiment.
Young Melisande marries an old widower, but falls in love with his younger brother. The events in her life happen independently of her realisation of them. There is no strong character construction or plot development here. Maeterlinck forced the action with the unexpected expediency of a dream. Shortly, the audience abandons the pretence of rationality and lets itself be weaved in a tapestry of imaginative unreal reality. The characters in turn are slaves to the logic of chaos and react with passions that outweigh the necessity of the action.
The effect is unsettling, and in part disappointing, for Maeterlinck forced us to ultimately employ thinking over feeling in the enjoyment of the play. The cerebral nature of his work is responsible for both its excellence and its relative obscurity in popular consciousness. “Pelleas and Melisande” with its radical approach might have changed history, and yet it comes across as just a curious experiment.
March 22, 2025
Maeterlinck gyönyörű szimbolista drámája, a klasszikus műfaji tulajdonságokat hordozza: játék a fénnyel, sötétséggel, víz és erdő szimbolika.
Ez a tiltott, és már az elejétől kárhozatra ítélt szerelem, szerelmi háromszög, a középkori “legendák” elemeit idézi. Nekem olvasás közben Trisztán és Izolda ( meg a kevésbé ismert Amadas és Ydoine) jutottak eszembe. A narratív tér és idő behatárolhatatlan, a kihagyások egy borzongató homályba bugyolálják a darabot. Egyébként a mű Debussy egyetlen operájaként vált ismerté, pedig a dramaturg, a belga származású Maeterlinck irodalmi Nobel-díjas.
Eredeti nyelven pláne gyönyörű volt🥺❤️🩹
Ez a tiltott, és már az elejétől kárhozatra ítélt szerelem, szerelmi háromszög, a középkori “legendák” elemeit idézi. Nekem olvasás közben Trisztán és Izolda ( meg a kevésbé ismert Amadas és Ydoine) jutottak eszembe. A narratív tér és idő behatárolhatatlan, a kihagyások egy borzongató homályba bugyolálják a darabot. Egyébként a mű Debussy egyetlen operájaként vált ismerté, pedig a dramaturg, a belga származású Maeterlinck irodalmi Nobel-díjas.
Eredeti nyelven pláne gyönyörű volt🥺❤️🩹
January 27, 2025
like reading a beautiful painting
May 3, 2025
Pas certaine d’avoir compris les tenants et les aboutissants…
Read
May 24, 2025Pues la verdad la estructura está interesante
June 26, 2025
Kurcze fajne, jak sie wezmie poprawke na realia epoki to nawet mozna sje powkurwiac troche i posmucic. Idk, lubie takie poerdoly
September 4, 2017
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2872453.html
This is one of Maeterlinck's earliest plays, first performed in 1893, and must have contributed richly to his reputation. The title of the play makes it easy to guess the plot. Although Golaud falls in love with Mélisande in the second scene and marries her, in fact she and his brother Pelléas end up fatally attracted to each other, and Golaud kills them both when he finds out. (Actually it's not clear if the wound or childbirth is the cause of Mélisande's death, but basically he stabs her and she dies.)
It's a pretty basic narrative - doomed adulterous love is one of the oldest cliches in the book, but I guess it resonated well in the 1890s. I wasn't overwhelmed by its elaboration in the script. Mélisande literally comes out of nowhere (she is cited in TV Tropes as a classic Fragile Flower); she seems to exist purely as an object of romantic interest for the two male leads. Pelléas is not much better. Golaud is more interesting than either of the title characters, as he works through disbelief, revenge and ultimately repentance, but that's not saying much. At the same time there's a lot of symbolism, especially around water (and Mélisande's entangling hair), that a good director could turn into something pretty memorable, especially if armed with Sibelius' incidental music.
This is one of Maeterlinck's earliest plays, first performed in 1893, and must have contributed richly to his reputation. The title of the play makes it easy to guess the plot. Although Golaud falls in love with Mélisande in the second scene and marries her, in fact she and his brother Pelléas end up fatally attracted to each other, and Golaud kills them both when he finds out. (Actually it's not clear if the wound or childbirth is the cause of Mélisande's death, but basically he stabs her and she dies.)
It's a pretty basic narrative - doomed adulterous love is one of the oldest cliches in the book, but I guess it resonated well in the 1890s. I wasn't overwhelmed by its elaboration in the script. Mélisande literally comes out of nowhere (she is cited in TV Tropes as a classic Fragile Flower); she seems to exist purely as an object of romantic interest for the two male leads. Pelléas is not much better. Golaud is more interesting than either of the title characters, as he works through disbelief, revenge and ultimately repentance, but that's not saying much. At the same time there's a lot of symbolism, especially around water (and Mélisande's entangling hair), that a good director could turn into something pretty memorable, especially if armed with Sibelius' incidental music.
June 6, 2011
J'ai eu un peu de mal à comprendre l'histoire de cette pièce et où Maeterlinck voulait en venir. L'intrigue est assez simple, mais comme souvent avec les œuvres symbolistes, j'ai préféré délaisser le sens à rechercher et me laisser charmer par la musicalité des mots, la beauté des images. J'ai particulièrement aimé le jeu entre clarté et ombre, lumière et obscurité qui traverse toute l’œuvre. Le style de Maeterlinck est absolument magnifique, savoureux: un véritable délice et bonheur de lecture pour moi.
(première lecture: 01 mars 2011)
Relue avec le même plaisir que la première fois, mais en occultant moins la part de compréhension cette fois. La narration me semble toujours aussi elliptique et entourée de mystère malgré tout : beaucoup de choses semblent passer par les regards, les gestes, et il y a énormément de non-dits. J’aimerais voir cette pièce sur scène pour voir comment seraient traduits ceux-ci et si je comprendrais davantage. Après les motifs de la lumière et de l’ombre qui m’avaient marqué la première fois, c’est celui de l’eau qui m’a particulièrement attiré pendant cette lecture-ci : elle est sans cesse présente, partout, reliant les personnages les uns aux autres. Enfin, mon avis reste le même quant à ce style symboliste : il me plaît toujours autant et est pour moi un véritable délice à lire.
(deuxième lecture: 06 juin 2011)
(première lecture: 01 mars 2011)
Relue avec le même plaisir que la première fois, mais en occultant moins la part de compréhension cette fois. La narration me semble toujours aussi elliptique et entourée de mystère malgré tout : beaucoup de choses semblent passer par les regards, les gestes, et il y a énormément de non-dits. J’aimerais voir cette pièce sur scène pour voir comment seraient traduits ceux-ci et si je comprendrais davantage. Après les motifs de la lumière et de l’ombre qui m’avaient marqué la première fois, c’est celui de l’eau qui m’a particulièrement attiré pendant cette lecture-ci : elle est sans cesse présente, partout, reliant les personnages les uns aux autres. Enfin, mon avis reste le même quant à ce style symboliste : il me plaît toujours autant et est pour moi un véritable délice à lire.
(deuxième lecture: 06 juin 2011)
March 3, 2019
Avec le génie de Gabriel Fauré en fond sonore, juste sublime.
February 16, 2021
Une merveille de poésie. Une beauté incroyable, des mots doux pour parler d'une vie impossible coincée entre un murmure insipide et le Clair de Lune argenté.
Read
April 6, 2024Non!
Franchement, j'ai l'impression d'être de retour en secondaire à devoir lire des "chefs d'oeuvres" pour mes.cours de français. Et comme tout ces livres, parce que écrit par un mec, on retrouve des sujets atroces banalisés et esthétisés... L'édition commence d'ailleurs avec un parrallèle Ophélie-Mélisande, image typique d'une jeune femme morte romantisée. La Communauté française de Belgique ne fait pas mieux en parlant de l'Ophelia de Millais. (Exaspération!)
-Je révèle des éléments de l'histoire. Mais celle-ci est, au moins aujourd'hui, tellement clichée que dès le début, vous saurez son déroulement et dénouement.-
La pièce commence par Golaud qui retrouve Mélisande pleurant a la fontaine comme une "petite fille". Quand il essaie de l'approcher, elle ne veut pas être touchée. Et tout du long, alors qu'on apprend qu'il est assez âgé (il a perdu sa 1ere épouse, il a un fils, il a une barbe blanche), il décrit Mélisande comme une enfant. Seule exception, après qu'on ait compris qu'il l'a épousée (alors que dans la 1ere scène, elle n'a pas l'air d'avoir envie de quoique ce soir avec lui : être touchée, partir avec lui, etc.), il lui dit "tu n'es plus une enfant maintenant". En gros comme iels ont eu des rapports sexuels (on peut se poser la question du consentement), le statut de Mélisande est censé avoir changé car elle n'est plus vierge. Mais bon après ça rebelotte de l'appeler "enfant". Cet usage de vocabulaire est complètement ancré dans la culture pédocriminelle.
Ensuite, ce que la Communaute française de Belgique en 2005 appelle de manière ultra pudique dans son analyse et référentiel de cours la "consommation de l'amour" entre Pélléas et Mélisande n'est certainement pas du sexe consentant : encore une fois, Mélisande répète sans cesse "non", dit à Pélléas qui tire sur ses cheveux qu'il lui fait mal et la met en danger (de tomber de la fenêtre : de mourir). Bref ceci est une scène de viol.
Et étant donné que Pélleas est le frère de Golaud et Mélisande représente le fantasme tordu de femme-enfant, j'ai même envie de dire qu'il s'agit d'inceste.
Inceste répété entre Golaud et Yniold lorsque le premier demande au deuxième d'observer Pélléas et Mélisande par la fenêtre comme si c'était un jeu. Ce que Golaud veut savoir c'est si Pélléas & Mélisande font du sexe mais De 1) infliger la vue d'adultes faisant du sexe à un enfant, c'est de la pédocriminalité. Ici, même si Golaud ne voit pas de ses propres yeux (rien de subtil au symbole ici), on est dans un voyeurisme dégueulasse et à tendance incestuelle puisque Mélisande est la belle-mère d'Yniold et Pélléas son oncle. De 2) comme toute la pièce joue sur des sous-entendus et symboles (complètement bateaux : lumière-savoir par ex), il me semble clair que cette scène de "jeu" entre le père et le fils est la figuration d'un acte d'inceste (Yniold lui dit d'ailleurs avoir mal quand Golaud le tient).
Mes critiques se confirment lorsque l'on suit la logique du cycle (et de la répétition) que nombreuses analyses soulèvent.
Je vous passe les autres scènes de violences stéréotypées et systémiques : mépris de classe et validisme envers les "pauvres aveugles" (qui ne sont en fait qu'un miroir des habitant.e.s du château qui ont pitié et peur de ces "pauvres aveugles"), violence conjugales lorsque Golaud s'en prend à Mélisande, violence intrafamilliale (comme Arkel qui impose ses caprices et ses incohérences à Pélléas), fratricide de Golaud sur Pélléas (par """jalousie"""), sexisme (Mélisande appartient a Golaud c'est bien comme ça qu'il faut le comprendre, elle est triste et il n'en a rien à faire, elle meurt d'une "petite" blessure tel les clichés des femmes dramatiques et menteuses et fatales - pour Pélléas ici puisqu'il meurt "par ses yeux").
Bref, aujourd'hui, c'est quand même incroyable que ces sujets ne soient pas abordés ! Je ne dis pas qu'il faut deviner si Maeterlinck amène une critique de ces violences ou non mais leur non-sujet les rend dangereusement banales à la société.
Et, franchement, est-ce que en 1890, les comparaison savoir-lumière, aveuglement-ignorance, femme-enfant-instinct VS homme-raison était si innovantes? J'en doute.
Franchement, j'ai l'impression d'être de retour en secondaire à devoir lire des "chefs d'oeuvres" pour mes.cours de français. Et comme tout ces livres, parce que écrit par un mec, on retrouve des sujets atroces banalisés et esthétisés... L'édition commence d'ailleurs avec un parrallèle Ophélie-Mélisande, image typique d'une jeune femme morte romantisée. La Communauté française de Belgique ne fait pas mieux en parlant de l'Ophelia de Millais. (Exaspération!)
-Je révèle des éléments de l'histoire. Mais celle-ci est, au moins aujourd'hui, tellement clichée que dès le début, vous saurez son déroulement et dénouement.-
La pièce commence par Golaud qui retrouve Mélisande pleurant a la fontaine comme une "petite fille". Quand il essaie de l'approcher, elle ne veut pas être touchée. Et tout du long, alors qu'on apprend qu'il est assez âgé (il a perdu sa 1ere épouse, il a un fils, il a une barbe blanche), il décrit Mélisande comme une enfant. Seule exception, après qu'on ait compris qu'il l'a épousée (alors que dans la 1ere scène, elle n'a pas l'air d'avoir envie de quoique ce soir avec lui : être touchée, partir avec lui, etc.), il lui dit "tu n'es plus une enfant maintenant". En gros comme iels ont eu des rapports sexuels (on peut se poser la question du consentement), le statut de Mélisande est censé avoir changé car elle n'est plus vierge. Mais bon après ça rebelotte de l'appeler "enfant". Cet usage de vocabulaire est complètement ancré dans la culture pédocriminelle.
Ensuite, ce que la Communaute française de Belgique en 2005 appelle de manière ultra pudique dans son analyse et référentiel de cours la "consommation de l'amour" entre Pélléas et Mélisande n'est certainement pas du sexe consentant : encore une fois, Mélisande répète sans cesse "non", dit à Pélléas qui tire sur ses cheveux qu'il lui fait mal et la met en danger (de tomber de la fenêtre : de mourir). Bref ceci est une scène de viol.
Et étant donné que Pélleas est le frère de Golaud et Mélisande représente le fantasme tordu de femme-enfant, j'ai même envie de dire qu'il s'agit d'inceste.
Inceste répété entre Golaud et Yniold lorsque le premier demande au deuxième d'observer Pélléas et Mélisande par la fenêtre comme si c'était un jeu. Ce que Golaud veut savoir c'est si Pélléas & Mélisande font du sexe mais De 1) infliger la vue d'adultes faisant du sexe à un enfant, c'est de la pédocriminalité. Ici, même si Golaud ne voit pas de ses propres yeux (rien de subtil au symbole ici), on est dans un voyeurisme dégueulasse et à tendance incestuelle puisque Mélisande est la belle-mère d'Yniold et Pélléas son oncle. De 2) comme toute la pièce joue sur des sous-entendus et symboles (complètement bateaux : lumière-savoir par ex), il me semble clair que cette scène de "jeu" entre le père et le fils est la figuration d'un acte d'inceste (Yniold lui dit d'ailleurs avoir mal quand Golaud le tient).
Mes critiques se confirment lorsque l'on suit la logique du cycle (et de la répétition) que nombreuses analyses soulèvent.
Je vous passe les autres scènes de violences stéréotypées et systémiques : mépris de classe et validisme envers les "pauvres aveugles" (qui ne sont en fait qu'un miroir des habitant.e.s du château qui ont pitié et peur de ces "pauvres aveugles"), violence conjugales lorsque Golaud s'en prend à Mélisande, violence intrafamilliale (comme Arkel qui impose ses caprices et ses incohérences à Pélléas), fratricide de Golaud sur Pélléas (par """jalousie"""), sexisme (Mélisande appartient a Golaud c'est bien comme ça qu'il faut le comprendre, elle est triste et il n'en a rien à faire, elle meurt d'une "petite" blessure tel les clichés des femmes dramatiques et menteuses et fatales - pour Pélléas ici puisqu'il meurt "par ses yeux").
Bref, aujourd'hui, c'est quand même incroyable que ces sujets ne soient pas abordés ! Je ne dis pas qu'il faut deviner si Maeterlinck amène une critique de ces violences ou non mais leur non-sujet les rend dangereusement banales à la société.
Et, franchement, est-ce que en 1890, les comparaison savoir-lumière, aveuglement-ignorance, femme-enfant-instinct VS homme-raison était si innovantes? J'en doute.
December 28, 2025
Pelléas and Mélisande is not a play in the conventional sense; it is an atmosphere given dramatic form. Maurice Maeterlinck, the central figure of Symbolist drama, abandons plot-driven action in favor of emotional resonance, silence, and suggestion.
What unfolds on stage is less a sequence of events than a slow immersion into fatality, innocence, and the inarticulate regions of human desire.
The story itself is skeletal. Golaud, a prince, discovers the mysterious Mélisande in a forest and marries her. She later forms an unspoken, almost childlike bond with Pelléas, Golaud’s half-brother. Jealousy grows, suspicion hardens, and violence erupts—not explosively, but with dreadful inevitability.
Mélisande dies, leaving behind only questions that cannot be answered.
Maeterlinck’s genius lies in his refusal to explain. Characters speak in simple, almost naive language, repeating phrases and asking questions that go unanswered.
Dialogue circles rather than advances. Meaning arises not from declaration but from hesitation. Silence, pauses, and darkness carry as much weight as speech.
The setting—a decaying castle surrounded by forests, caves, and water—is profoundly symbolic without ever resolving into allegory. Light and darkness, blindness and sight, and water and enclosure recur obsessively.
These motifs do not signify fixed ideas; they generate emotional states. The world of Pelléas and Mélisande feels submerged, as if all action occurs underwater, slowed by unseen pressure.
Mélisande herself is one of modern literature’s most elusive figures. She is not a femme fatale, nor a tragic heroine in the classical sense. She is radically passive, almost pre-conscious, acting without strategy or self-awareness.
Her innocence is not virtue but vulnerability—an openness that proves fatal in a world governed by possession and suspicion.
Golaud, by contrast, represents the violence of interpretation. He must know, must define, must accuse. His tragedy is not jealousy alone but his inability to tolerate ambiguity. In this sense, Pelléas and Mélisande becomes a drama about the destructive impulse to make the unknowable legible.
Maeterlinck’s Symbolism rejects realism not to escape reality, but to reach beneath it. He assumes that the deepest truths of human existence—love, fear, fate, death—cannot be articulated directly. They must be approached obliquely, through mood, repetition, and dreamlike logic.
The play’s influence has been immense, particularly through Debussy’s operatic adaptation, which preserves its hushed intensity.
Yet the text itself remains powerful on the page. Reading Pelléas and Mélisande feels like listening for echoes in a vast, dim space.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1911, Maeterlinck was honoured for giving drama a new metaphysical dimension. Pelléas and Mélisande exemplifies this achievement. It does not tell us what happens so much as what it feels like to exist under forces we cannot name.
The play endures because it respects mystery. In a literary tradition often obsessed with explanation, Maeterlinck insists that some truths are only felt—and that to force clarity where none exists is itself a form of violence.
Recommended.
What unfolds on stage is less a sequence of events than a slow immersion into fatality, innocence, and the inarticulate regions of human desire.
The story itself is skeletal. Golaud, a prince, discovers the mysterious Mélisande in a forest and marries her. She later forms an unspoken, almost childlike bond with Pelléas, Golaud’s half-brother. Jealousy grows, suspicion hardens, and violence erupts—not explosively, but with dreadful inevitability.
Mélisande dies, leaving behind only questions that cannot be answered.
Maeterlinck’s genius lies in his refusal to explain. Characters speak in simple, almost naive language, repeating phrases and asking questions that go unanswered.
Dialogue circles rather than advances. Meaning arises not from declaration but from hesitation. Silence, pauses, and darkness carry as much weight as speech.
The setting—a decaying castle surrounded by forests, caves, and water—is profoundly symbolic without ever resolving into allegory. Light and darkness, blindness and sight, and water and enclosure recur obsessively.
These motifs do not signify fixed ideas; they generate emotional states. The world of Pelléas and Mélisande feels submerged, as if all action occurs underwater, slowed by unseen pressure.
Mélisande herself is one of modern literature’s most elusive figures. She is not a femme fatale, nor a tragic heroine in the classical sense. She is radically passive, almost pre-conscious, acting without strategy or self-awareness.
Her innocence is not virtue but vulnerability—an openness that proves fatal in a world governed by possession and suspicion.
Golaud, by contrast, represents the violence of interpretation. He must know, must define, must accuse. His tragedy is not jealousy alone but his inability to tolerate ambiguity. In this sense, Pelléas and Mélisande becomes a drama about the destructive impulse to make the unknowable legible.
Maeterlinck’s Symbolism rejects realism not to escape reality, but to reach beneath it. He assumes that the deepest truths of human existence—love, fear, fate, death—cannot be articulated directly. They must be approached obliquely, through mood, repetition, and dreamlike logic.
The play’s influence has been immense, particularly through Debussy’s operatic adaptation, which preserves its hushed intensity.
Yet the text itself remains powerful on the page. Reading Pelléas and Mélisande feels like listening for echoes in a vast, dim space.
Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1911, Maeterlinck was honoured for giving drama a new metaphysical dimension. Pelléas and Mélisande exemplifies this achievement. It does not tell us what happens so much as what it feels like to exist under forces we cannot name.
The play endures because it respects mystery. In a literary tradition often obsessed with explanation, Maeterlinck insists that some truths are only felt—and that to force clarity where none exists is itself a form of violence.
Recommended.
December 26, 2025
(Retrouver tous mes avis lectures sur mon Instagram, mon Tiktok et ma page Facebook sous le pseudo : @ocean.ofbooks)
• Titre : "Pelléas et Mélisande"
• Genre : Théâtre
• Thèmes : Triangle amoureux, amour interdit.
• Auteure : Maurice Maeterlinck
• Éditeur : Espace Nord
• Préface : Henri Ronse
• Postface : Paul Aron
• Illustration de couverture : John William Waterhouse
• Note : 3,5/5
• Extrait :
"Peut-être étais-tu de celles qui sont malheureuses sans le savoir... Laisse-moi te regarder ainsi, de tout près, un moment... on a un tel besoin de beauté aux côtés de la mort..."
• Résumé :
" "Une variation supérieure sur l'admirable vieux mélodrame", notait Mallarmé à propos de Pelléas, dont l'intrigue, effectivement, peut sembler bien conventionnelle : le Prince Golaud recueille à l'orée d'un bois une jeune fille dont il va faire son épouse.
Mais c'est du frère de Golaud, Pelléas, que Mélisande tombe amoureuse, et le destin fatal qui pèse sur les personnages les mènera inévitablement à la désolation. La fable cependant n'est ici que prétexte à dérober au silence ses secrets. Universellement célèbres au début de ce siècle, grâce notamment à l'opéra de Debussy, les ombres de Pelléas et Mélisande nous reviennent dans leur innocence inquiète."
• Avis :
Ce livre traînait dans ma bibliothèque depuis un moment déjà. Un achat vinted de longue date motivé dans un premier temps par la couverture, puis par le résumé bien sûr.
J'ai toujours aimé le théâtre, j'en lis certes bien moins qu'avant, mais c'est toujours un plaisir lorsque ça arrive.
J'avais entendu vaguement parler de Pelléas et Mélisande au collège, mais avec les années cela m'était totalement sortie de la tête. Je connaissais l'histoire, mais ne l'avais jamais lu.
Ce n'est pas ma pièce de théâtre préféré, mais j'ai toute de même beaucoup aimé l'ambiance, l'atmosphère, les dialogues (bien qu'un peu vieillot), etc.
C'est une histoire tragique et marquante. Par contre, je la trouve tout de même un peu problématique. Évidemment qu'il faut lire et juger une œuvre en prenant toujours en compte le contexte, mais l'âge de Mélisande me dérange un peu. Il n'est jamais clairement indiqué, mais on comprend qu'elle est très jeune contrairement à Golaud qui est décrit comme un homme grisonnant.
J'aimerais beaucoup avoir d'autres avis !
• Titre : "Pelléas et Mélisande"
• Genre : Théâtre
• Thèmes : Triangle amoureux, amour interdit.
• Auteure : Maurice Maeterlinck
• Éditeur : Espace Nord
• Préface : Henri Ronse
• Postface : Paul Aron
• Illustration de couverture : John William Waterhouse
• Note : 3,5/5
• Extrait :
"Peut-être étais-tu de celles qui sont malheureuses sans le savoir... Laisse-moi te regarder ainsi, de tout près, un moment... on a un tel besoin de beauté aux côtés de la mort..."
• Résumé :
" "Une variation supérieure sur l'admirable vieux mélodrame", notait Mallarmé à propos de Pelléas, dont l'intrigue, effectivement, peut sembler bien conventionnelle : le Prince Golaud recueille à l'orée d'un bois une jeune fille dont il va faire son épouse.
Mais c'est du frère de Golaud, Pelléas, que Mélisande tombe amoureuse, et le destin fatal qui pèse sur les personnages les mènera inévitablement à la désolation. La fable cependant n'est ici que prétexte à dérober au silence ses secrets. Universellement célèbres au début de ce siècle, grâce notamment à l'opéra de Debussy, les ombres de Pelléas et Mélisande nous reviennent dans leur innocence inquiète."
• Avis :
Ce livre traînait dans ma bibliothèque depuis un moment déjà. Un achat vinted de longue date motivé dans un premier temps par la couverture, puis par le résumé bien sûr.
J'ai toujours aimé le théâtre, j'en lis certes bien moins qu'avant, mais c'est toujours un plaisir lorsque ça arrive.
J'avais entendu vaguement parler de Pelléas et Mélisande au collège, mais avec les années cela m'était totalement sortie de la tête. Je connaissais l'histoire, mais ne l'avais jamais lu.
Ce n'est pas ma pièce de théâtre préféré, mais j'ai toute de même beaucoup aimé l'ambiance, l'atmosphère, les dialogues (bien qu'un peu vieillot), etc.
C'est une histoire tragique et marquante. Par contre, je la trouve tout de même un peu problématique. Évidemment qu'il faut lire et juger une œuvre en prenant toujours en compte le contexte, mais l'âge de Mélisande me dérange un peu. Il n'est jamais clairement indiqué, mais on comprend qu'elle est très jeune contrairement à Golaud qui est décrit comme un homme grisonnant.
J'aimerais beaucoup avoir d'autres avis !
June 9, 2020
هي قصة أمير اسمه جولو، عثر في أثناء تيه في الغابة على فتاة ملائكية، تبكي ولا تعلم من أين جاءت، واسمها ميليزاند، يأخذها معه حيث القصر الذي تغيب عنه الشمس في غالبية أيام السنة، وينجح في الزواج منها، حيث هو أرمل ولديه طفل صغير.
تقوم علاقة حب أفلاطونية بين ميليزاند وپلياس أخو جولو، يجد فيها الجزء الناقص وفيه، وترى هي فيه اكتمالها، لكن جولو عائق بينهما، ويكون ضياع خاتم الخطبة في البحيرة في وسط الكهف بداية لشكوك جولو فيها، حتى يعثر عليها وهما في حالة عناق، يقتل أخاه، وتموت ميليزاند نتيجة لإصابة بجرح في جنبها الأيسر تحت ثديها اللطيف، جرح صغير لو كان بحمامة لما قتلها.
...
ربما هذه المسرحية تعبر عن الشعب، المجبر عن اتباع الأمير، الحاكم أيا ما كان، لكن إذا أراد الشعب "ميليزاند" الاختيار فغالباً سيتعرض لعقوبة كبيرة، هو قتل المختار، وشنق حلم الشعب ببطء.. ربما الكهف كان رمزاً لأن اختيار الشعب يمثل كل صعوبات الحياة في الكهف، لكن رغم الصعوبات تكمن المتعة، ربما كان في الاجبار، القصر الوهمي، أو الوطن المثالي الذي يعشش في خيال الشعب، لكن كيف هذا والنور محجوب عنه.. مسرحية بها الكثير من الرمز، الأماكن يكمن فيها الكثير من الإيحاءات، ويبقى لكل قارئ لهذه المسرحية مهمة فك الطلاسم.
تقوم علاقة حب أفلاطونية بين ميليزاند وپلياس أخو جولو، يجد فيها الجزء الناقص وفيه، وترى هي فيه اكتمالها، لكن جولو عائق بينهما، ويكون ضياع خاتم الخطبة في البحيرة في وسط الكهف بداية لشكوك جولو فيها، حتى يعثر عليها وهما في حالة عناق، يقتل أخاه، وتموت ميليزاند نتيجة لإصابة بجرح في جنبها الأيسر تحت ثديها اللطيف، جرح صغير لو كان بحمامة لما قتلها.
...
ربما هذه المسرحية تعبر عن الشعب، المجبر عن اتباع الأمير، الحاكم أيا ما كان، لكن إذا أراد الشعب "ميليزاند" الاختيار فغالباً سيتعرض لعقوبة كبيرة، هو قتل المختار، وشنق حلم الشعب ببطء.. ربما الكهف كان رمزاً لأن اختيار الشعب يمثل كل صعوبات الحياة في الكهف، لكن رغم الصعوبات تكمن المتعة، ربما كان في الاجبار، القصر الوهمي، أو الوطن المثالي الذي يعشش في خيال الشعب، لكن كيف هذا والنور محجوب عنه.. مسرحية بها الكثير من الرمز، الأماكن يكمن فيها الكثير من الإيحاءات، ويبقى لكل قارئ لهذه المسرحية مهمة فك الطلاسم.
June 11, 2021
Une pièce où j’ai retrouvé concentrés bien des pôles de ma mythologie personnelle : le moyen âge, l’eau, la mort, l’amour, l’enfance et sa pureté s’y mêlent dans une atmosphère de mystère comme sacrée.
Ce qui rend surprenant cet effet si puissant, c’est que l’écriture reste assez simple et presque plate, avec peu de métaphores et d’effets de style en dehors de l’usage à double entente de presque chaque mot. L’action avance très vite et tout semble presque trop explicite mais le mystère opéré quand même. Il m’a sûrement manqué de voir la pièce que je ressens d’une manière très graphique et que j’imaginerais volontiers comme un film à l’esthétique épurée inspirée par la peinture préraphaélite
Ce qui rend surprenant cet effet si puissant, c’est que l’écriture reste assez simple et presque plate, avec peu de métaphores et d’effets de style en dehors de l’usage à double entente de presque chaque mot. L’action avance très vite et tout semble presque trop explicite mais le mystère opéré quand même. Il m’a sûrement manqué de voir la pièce que je ressens d’une manière très graphique et que j’imaginerais volontiers comme un film à l’esthétique épurée inspirée par la peinture préraphaélite
September 19, 2019
A gripping love story, that I would like to see performed on stage. I liked how Maeterlinck perfectly captures the tense atmosphere in and around Arkel's dark castle. I also found it impressive how he entirely delineates the personalities of his characters in the space of such a short play.
That said, I would have liked a few more dialogues between Pelleas and Melisande, as their love story now remains too much in the background, hidden behind allusions and silent references. The only scene in which the reader gets more details about their love affair, when Melisande is combing her hair in the window, lacks the poetic depth of the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet.
That said, I would have liked a few more dialogues between Pelleas and Melisande, as their love story now remains too much in the background, hidden behind allusions and silent references. The only scene in which the reader gets more details about their love affair, when Melisande is combing her hair in the window, lacks the poetic depth of the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet.
October 11, 2018
Une pièce de théâtre en cinq actes de Maurice Maeterlinck, invitant le lecteur à naviguer dans un clair-obscur mélancolique intimement lié au péché de deux amants.
Le cadre spacio-temporel, très abstrait dans cette oeuvre n’est pas pour déstabiliser le lecteur. Aussi, la succession des actes est tout sauf monotone, elle peut être qualifiée de très savoureuse même…
Il est de ces figures littéraires qui représentent la quintessence du drame symboliste, et cette pièce en fait assurément partie.
Le cadre spacio-temporel, très abstrait dans cette oeuvre n’est pas pour déstabiliser le lecteur. Aussi, la succession des actes est tout sauf monotone, elle peut être qualifiée de très savoureuse même…
Il est de ces figures littéraires qui représentent la quintessence du drame symboliste, et cette pièce en fait assurément partie.
November 9, 2020
120 stránek, které jsem podle nadšených recenzí asi moc nepochopila... Uvidíme, třeba po diskuzi na univerzitě změním názor, zatím se každopádně Peleas a Melisanda řadí mezi to nutné zlo v povinné četbě.
I přesto se ale našly 2 myšlenky, které si zde odložím.
"Mýlíme se stále, pokud oči nezavřeme"
"Ticho . . . Ticho . . . mluvte tiše nyní — ne smíme jí vyrušovali . . . duše lidská je tak mlčen livá . . . Duše lidská odchází ráda samotna . . . Tak trpí plna plachosti . . . Jaký smutek, Go- lode . .. . jaký ze všeho smutek 1 . . . Oh! ohi oh!"
I přesto se ale našly 2 myšlenky, které si zde odložím.
"Mýlíme se stále, pokud oči nezavřeme"
"Ticho . . . Ticho . . . mluvte tiše nyní — ne smíme jí vyrušovali . . . duše lidská je tak mlčen livá . . . Duše lidská odchází ráda samotna . . . Tak trpí plna plachosti . . . Jaký smutek, Go- lode . .. . jaký ze všeho smutek 1 . . . Oh! ohi oh!"
March 11, 2022
Nobel Prize 🏆 in Literature 1911
Maurice Maeterlinck is mostly remembered for the Opera Claude Debussy made out of this play. I read it accompanied in the background by that music, as well as the adaptations by Schönberg, Sibelius, Fauré and Mel Bonis.
The story itself is a classic love-triangle, but the symbolism in it makes it a predecessor of many modern plays. As such, it was ahead of its time.
Maurice Maeterlinck is mostly remembered for the Opera Claude Debussy made out of this play. I read it accompanied in the background by that music, as well as the adaptations by Schönberg, Sibelius, Fauré and Mel Bonis.
The story itself is a classic love-triangle, but the symbolism in it makes it a predecessor of many modern plays. As such, it was ahead of its time.
February 27, 2022
Quite an old fashioned tragedy in terms of its language. The plot is simple boy meets girl who loves brother instead. But there is a nice sense of gothic with the sea port castle of the setting, sitting over strange grottoes and cellars. The fee innocence of Melisande is a nice construct: she is some sort of river nymph adrift among humans who are no longer as innocent as she.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 7, 2024
„Aš baisiai senas, bet dar niekad atvirai nepažvelgiau į savo sielos gelmes; tai kaip galiu spręsti apie kitų poelgius? Aš jau viena koja grabe, o dar nepajėgiu įvertinti savęs... Visada suklysi, jei neužmerksi akių ir neatleisi arba dar geriau nesuvoksi savęs”, - Arkelis (Maeterlinck, 2020, p. 41).
July 16, 2024
A superior variation on the admirable old melodrama", said Mallarmé about Pelléas. The plot does seem conventional: Prince Golaud meets Melisande, a timid, shy and enchanting girl that is lost in a forest. He takes her to his castle and decides to marry her. But Melisande falls in love with his brother, Pelleas ...
June 20, 2021
Waarschijnlijk een geweldig stuk toneel maar ze hadden het beter op de planken gehouden en niet als boek uitgeven. (De reden van de slechte review ligt echter wel volledig aan mijn kant, scripts zijn niet mijn favoriete lectuur..)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews